ALABAMA: State Court Removes Talladega City From Grant Well Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Montgomery County Circuit Court ruled that the city of Talladega, Alabama be removed from a class action filed against it, the Talladega Water and Sewer Board and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, over the board's continued use of the Grant Street well, which has shown unacceptable levels of a possible carcinogen, the Talladega Daily Home reports.

Under Judge Charles Price's ruling, the case against the city of Talladega will have to be brought in Talladega County, as is required by state law. Judge Price will keep jurisdiction over the part of the suit dealing with the board and ADEM.

Last week, plaintiffs argued that if Judge Price had jurisdiction over one party in a class action suit, then he essentially had jurisdiction over all parties. Attorneys for the city and the board countered, saying this would not apply since the city has to be sued in the county where it is situated and the board has to be sued where the alleged wrongdoing occurred.

Attorney J.L. Chestnut of Selma, who is representing the citizens in this matter, told the Daily Home that he was "not sure the court was correct in severing, and I'm really not sure the city wants the case to come back to Talladega . I have not decided yet if we are going to appeal that decision, but we probably won't. My understanding . is that the board is primarily responsible for the contamination. The city's only responsibility is to appoint the board members. If, however, in discovery we come across evidence of more complicity between the city and the board, that is a different matter."

Attorney David Stubbs of Anniston, who is representing the city of Talladega, told the Daily Home he has not seen Mr. Price's order and has not spoken with Mr. Chestnut. He speculated, however, that the city could be dropped as a defendant in the suit.

"Although the City Council does appoint the board members, but they don't maintain any day-to-day oversight and they aren't involved in the decision making process. I'm pleased to have the case back in Talladega County, for the convenience of all the parties," he said. "Absent any evidence linking the city to the alleged problem, our next step will be to move for a summary judgment dismissing the city from the suit."

Water board attorney Charlana Spencer told the Daily Home Judge Price's ruling "speaks for itself" and declined to comment any further.

BLACK BOX: SEC Conducts Probe Over Insider Trading, Stock Fraud---------------------------------------------------------------The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is conducting an investigation into Black Box Corporation, on charges of insider trading by unnamed officers and directors, the Company announced Wednesday, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review reports.

The inquiry focuses on the Company's announcement March 11 that its earnings in the fiscal quarter ending March 31 would come in well below expectations. The announcement led some investors to dump company stock. In a filing with the SEC, the company said it intends to cooperate fully and had voluntarily provided information to regulators before becoming the subject of a formal inquiry.

Black Box is the target of several class-action lawsuits surrounding the March 11 earnings warning, the Tribune Review states. The lawsuits allege the company:

(1) Failed to disclose that its European operations were not performing well and would have to be scaled back;

The suits further allege that the Company insiders sold Company stock in the months leading up to the March 11 announcement, where the Company stated its earnings for the quarter would be no more than 54 cents per share, lower than analyst expectations of 74 cents. The next day, Black Box's stock dropped 31 percent, from $39.14 per share to $26.78.

Black Box spokeswoman Anna Baird told the Pittsburgh Tribune Review that executives and officers did not sell company stock during that period. The SEC "wanted information from some officers and directors related to financial information they had available to them," Ms. Baird said.

BOC GROUP: Man With Parkinson's Wins $1M in Damages ---------------------------------------------------A Madison County, Illinois awarded US$1 million in damages to plaintiff Larry Elam, who filed a lawsuit against industrial gases firm The BOC Group and other companies, alleging that the welding rods the firms manufactured caused him to have Parkinson's disease, The Independent (UK) reports.

Plaintiff Larry Elam, 65, claimed he developed a Parkinson's type disease at age 57 after he worked around welders in Missouri. Aside from the Company, Mr. Elam also sued Hobart Brothers and Lincoln Electric, manufacturers of welding rods.

The verdict was the first successful case of its kind, following a change in US law that makes class actions easier to mount. Analysts predict that the verdict might cause a flood of massive class actions in the United States, possibly at an estimated US$70 billion (GBP41 billion).

BOC shares plunged yesterday after the verdict was released. BOC shares closed down nearly 8 per cent at 821.5p, wiping more than GBP330 million off the value of the company, The Independent reports.

The British company continued to insist it was not liable and said it would appeal. It told the Independent, "BOC believes that the verdict reached in this case is inconsistent with Illinois law. No causal relationship has ever been established between exposure to welding fumes and idiopathic Parkinson's disease and this verdict is contrary to the scientific, medical and toxicological evidence." BOC said scientific proof of a link between the use of the rods and Parkinson's disease had not been established, as civil cases only required the "benefit of the doubt".

Earlier this year, broker HSBC warned of the risks of litigation over the issue, putting the potential costs to the welding industry at between $35 billion and $70 billion, based on 70,000 possible plaintiffs - or 10 per cent of welders in the US "given that Parkinson's disease causes a significant diminution in standard of life and often requires costly 24-hour care."

The Company has always dismissed any idea that it has exposure to lawsuits over this product, including a strongly worded rebuttal to the HSBC research note, The Independent reports. The Madison County judgment was the ninth such case to be brought.

A local newspaper, the Belleville News-Democrat, said that, with a hand shaking from tremors, Mr. Elam thanked each juror as he or she left the courtroom. Doctors who testified for Mr. Elam during a three-week trial suggested a link between welding fumes and the onset of Parkinson's-type disease. Experts for the defense contradicted that. Mr. Elam's original claim was for US$2.3 million.

Crash tests conducted by NHTSA have demonstrated that forces on certain Super Elite restraints during a crash could cause the child's head to move forward further than allowed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." Head movement like this in a real crash could result in injury to a child.

Britax will mail a free repair kit along with easy-to-follow installation instructions to owners who have returned their registration cards.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (toll-free) 1-888-4BRITAX (1-888-427-4829) or visit its Website: http://www.BritaxUSA.com.

DAIFUKU TRADING: Recalls Japanese Cookies For Undeclared Peanuts----------------------------------------------------------------Daifuku Trading Corporation of Flushing, New York is voluntarily recalling packages of Kasugai/Rakka Senbei (Japanese Cookies) because they may contain undeclared peanuts. People who have severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Kasugai/Rakka Senbei (Japanese Cookies) are packaged in a 7 oz. plastic package with the code number 04.01.06. They were sold in New York City Retail Markets. They are a product of Japan.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors revealed the presence of undeclared peanuts in Kasugai/Rakka Senbei (Japanese Cookies) in packages which did not declare peanuts on the label. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased Kasugai/Rakka Senbei (Japanese Cookies) should return it to the place of purchase. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-718-886-2300.

DOW CORNING: Court To Rule on Right To See Medical, Work Records----------------------------------------------------------------Michigan's Saginaw County Circuit Court Judge Leopold P. Borrello will decide in 10 days whether residents suing Dow Chemical Co. for dioxin contamination must hand over their medical and employment records, The Bay City Times reports.

Attorney Jan P. Helder, who represents the residents, told Judge Borrello that the chemical company has no business looking at the documents. He labeled the Company's request as "too broad" and overstepping "residents' privacy rights." "This is more than just a fishing expedition," he told the judge. "This is throwing a spear into the ocean and hoping to catch a fish."

However, Company attorneys say they are entitled to see the records. Chicago-based attorney Douglas J. Kurtenbach said Dow has the right to know whether the residents are "in the same boat" in terms of dioxin exposure and health conditions, the Bay City Times reports. "Would it be fair to Dow to have a jury decide on the case without giving us the chance to discover (records) on all of them?" Mr. Kurtenbach asked.

Judge Borrello ordered Mr. Helder to hand over all undisputed documents by December. He will decide within 10 days whether to include medical and employment records on the list of required records. With the delays in document sharing, however, the judge also decided to postpone a hearing to give class action status to nearly 300 people who reside along the Tittabawassee River, the Bay City Times reports.

ENRON NA: SEC Charges Former CEO With Securities Act Violations---------------------------------------------------------------The Securities and Exchange Commission charged David W. Delainey, the former Chief Executive Officer of Enron North America and Enron Energy Services, with violating the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

Without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint, Mr. Delainey has agreed to be enjoined permanently from violating Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1, and aiding and abetting the violation of Sections 13(a), and 13(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13, and to be barred from acting as an officer or director of a public company.

As part of the settlement agreement, which is subject to the approval of the US District Court, Mr. Delainey will pay nominal disgorgement of $100 and a civil penalty of approximately $3.74 million. The Commission brought this action in coordination with the US Department of Justice Enron Task Force, which filed a related criminal charge against Mr. Delainey. Mr. Delainey agreed to enter a guilty plea in connection with that charge, forfeit approximately $4.26 million in unlawful proceeds, and cooperate with the government's continuing investigation.

As alleged in the complaint, Mr. Delainey, along with others at Enron, engaged in a wide-ranging scheme to manipulate Enron's publicly reported earnings through a variety of devices designed to produce materially false and misleading financial results. This scheme included, among other things, the manipulation of reserve accounts, concealment of losses, improper inflation of asset values and use of fraudulent devices designed to "hedge," or lock-in, inflated asset values, and use of improper accounting techniques to achieve earnings objectives and avoid large losses.

The Complaint also alleges that Mr. Delainey, while in possession of material non-public information, namely, that Enron management was scheming to manipulate Enron's reported financial results, sold large amounts of Enron stock at inflated prices and reaped millions of dollars in profits.

Specifically, the Commission's complaint alleges as follows:

(1) Manipulation of Reserves To Manage Earnings: During 2000, Enron's wholesale energy trading business, primarily its ENA business, began generating extraordinary trading profits as a result of rapidly rising energy prices in the western United States, especially in California. Beginning in the first quarter of 2000 and continuing in increasing scope and size throughout 2000 and 2001, Enron improperly reserved (in a ledger designated "Schedule C") hundreds of millions of dollars of earnings, primarily within the ENA business unit, to conceal volatility in its energy trading profits and to use large amounts of those reserves to cover-up losses in ENA's "merchant" asset portfolio and from other business units such as EES.

(2) Concealment of Uncollectible EES Receivables and Losses: Enron also used reserves to conceal huge receivables that California public utilities owed to Enron, incurred during the energy crisis in California, and that Enron believed it would not collect. By December 2000, these uncollectible receivables were valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. In the fourth quarter of 2000 and again in the first quarter of 2001, Enron and ENA senior commercial and accounting managers concealed the existence of these bad debts by booking them as reserves on the unreported "Schedule C" within ENA, even though they were in fact owed to EES. In the first quarter of 2001, Enron's senior management also concealed huge losses associated with inflated valuations of EES contracts which, if recognized as required, would have wiped out EES's profits and revealed EES to have been a failing business.

(3) Fraudulent Valuation of "Merchant" Assets: During the fourth quarter of 2000, senior Enron and ENA accounting and commercial managers artificially increased the value of ENA's largest merchant asset, Mariner Energy Inc., by approximately $100 million to help cover an earnings shortfall facing the Company that quarter of approximately $200 million. In the third quarter of 2000, other ENA "merchant" assets were similarly manipulated in value before being inserted into an elaborate hedging mechanism known as the "Raptors." This Raptor mechanism was not a legitimate hedge.

(4) Other Manipulative Devices: In 1998, Enron fraudulently avoided a loss in the hundreds of millions of dollars associated with an energy supply contract with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) by summarily removing the TVA contract from its mark-to-market accounting books. After avoiding immediate disclosure of the TVA loss, senior Enron commercial and accounting managers devised a plan to avoid later disclosure of the loss, which involved the purchase of power-plant turbines and the construction of "peaker" power plants to be used to satisfy Enron's obligations to the TVA. At year-end 1999, Enron entered into back-to-back energy trades with Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., to sell and then repurchase energy generated from the "peaker" plants. This transaction allowed Enron to meet its year-end earnings targets. Early in the second quarter of 2000 and before any energy was exchanged between Enron and Merrill Lynch, Enron completely "unwound," or reversed, its energy trading positions with Merrill Lynch. (See SEC v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et.al., Civil Action No. H-03-0946 (S.D. Tex.) (filed March 17, 2003).

(5) Insider Trading: Mr. Delainey, through his participation in the fraudulent accounting scheme at Enron, knew that Enron's management was manipulating Enron's reported financial results. While in possession of this material non-public information, Mr. Delainey sold a large amount of Enron stock, reaping millions of dollars in profits.

The suit is styled "SEC v. David W. Delainey, Civil Action No. H-03-4883," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

HEGEDORNS SUPERMARKET: Recalls Cake For Undeclared Milk Protein---------------------------------------------------------------Hegedorns Supermarket of Webster, NY is recalling Sugar Free Golden Pound Cake because it may contain undeclared milk protein. People who have allergies to milk protein may run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Sugar Free Golden Pound Cake, no expiration date, 14-oz. size is sold in the Bakery Department.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors revealed the presence of undeclared milk protein in Sugar Free Golden Pound Cake in packages which did not declare a milk ingredient on the label. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. This product is supplied to Hegedorn Bakery by an outside vendor.

Consumers who have purchased Sugar Free Golden Pound Cake should return it to the place of purchase. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 585-671-4450.

JAMES DOWN: Suit Moved to Avoid Federal Racketeering Charges------------------------------------------------------------Lawyers for Canadian James Blair Down moved the class action filed against him to Illinois Federal Court, citing threats from plaintiffs' attorneys to seek federal racketeering charges against the defendant, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The lawsuit, filed in Madison County Circuit Court, accused Mr. Down of fooling many customers, many of them elderly, into investing in lotteries around the world, claiming that pooling money would enhance their odds. In 1998, Mr. Down pleaded guilty to a federal charge of criminal conspiracy to transport gaming paraphernalia. He profited an estimated range of $50 million to more than $200 million from his scam.

Notice of the change was filed days before the parties in the case were due to comply with an order from Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron to come up with revisions to a proposed $10 million settlement of the case, the Post-Dispatch reports.

Judge Byron earlier proposed a major revision that would have required Mr. Down to put up a $1 million down payment that would be forfeited if Down Mr. backed out of the deal. Judge Byron had warned the parties that if they couldn't agree to a settlement by Wednesday, he would set the case for trial in January.

Jody Pope, a New York lawyer representing several objectors to the settlement, said the shift to federal court was an effort on Mr. Down's behalf to avoid the $1 million down payment. "My suspicion is that Down was refusing to put up the $1 million," Mr. Pope told The Post-Dispatch.

He added, "The defendant thinks he'll get a better deal in federal court. I doubt he will. I think it will get knocked back" to Madison County Circuit Court."

Lawyers for Mr. Down have contended that settling the suit for $10 million would leave Mr. Down destitute. Mr. Down's attorney, Howard Suskin, declined to comment.

MEDCO HEALTH: Marion County To Join Improper Administration Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------Marion County in Florida is joining a class action against former prescription drug provider Medco Health Solutions, Inc., over its "improper administration" of services, The Marion Star reports. The company allegedly systematically favored the products of its parent company, Merck.

The Company has proposed a $42.5 million settlement for the suit. The settlement will be shared among all those who held contracts with the company between December 17, 1994 and July 31, 2003. By giving an advantage to Merck, employees who used the plan were locked into buying drugs that were sometimes more expensive, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Larry Babich told The Star.

The county held a contract during that period and is entitled to a small share of the money. "It won't make a major financial impact for Marion County," Mr. Babich said.

NEW YORK: NY Court Allows Lawsuit Over Strip Searches To Proceed----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court in Brooklyn, New York allowed a class action filed against Brooklyn police, alleging they wrongfully strip-searched people arrested on misdemeanor charges to proceed, 1010 WINS reports.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs told WINS that the police strip-searched people even when there was no reason to believe they were hiding anything, and that conditions at Brooklyn Central Booking are "deplorable." Police are prohibited from strip-searching people charged with minor offenses unless there is reason to believe they are concealing weapons or other contraband.

City lawyers have said that there was no policy of strip-searching everyone arrested in Brooklyn. They have also said some of the plaintiffs in the Brooklyn case were originally arrested for felonies, making strip-searches legal, WINS reports.

In January 2001, the city settled a lawsuit alleging that correction officers in Manhattan and Queens illegally strip-searched tens of thousands of people arrested for minor crimes like loitering and disorderly conduct.

NEW YORK: New Yorkers To Recoup Benefits Denied by State's HRA--------------------------------------------------------------As the result of an order signed October 24 by the US District Court, Southern District of New York (Judge Denise Cote), the notice will soon be in the mail for thousands of poor New Yorkers denied benefits by the City of New York's Human Resources Administration (HRA).

In accordance with the settlement, the City will send letters to anyone who was denied public assistance, food stamps or Medicaid benefits after January 1, 2002, and received a standard notice stating that the reason for denial was a "failure to provide complete or truthful information." The settlement requires that the City notify those whose benefits were denied of their right to contest the denial through a state action hearing.

"This is a tremendous victory for the thousands of New Yorkers who were illegally denied essential benefits without sufficient justification," said Randal S. Jeffrey, assistant director of General Legal Services Unit at the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), who brought the action for plaintiffs, in a statement.

This action arose out of the City's Eligibility Verification Review (EVR) office's illegal denial and discontinuance of public assistance, food stamps, and Medicaid benefits. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani established EVR in 1995 to reduce fraud in these programs, but EVR's primary effect has been to inappropriately deny public assistance benefits to thousands of impoverished New Yorkers.

On Oct. 29, 1999, plaintiffs filed class action Roberson vs. Giuliani pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The plaintiffs and the City settled in May 2001. In the settlement agreement, the City agreed to a number of undertakings, including the mandate to provide public assistance, food stamp, and Medicaid applicants and recipients a more specific reason for denials and discontinuances beyond the vague and legally inadequate statement that they "failed to provide complete and truthful information."

The City's own survey, conducted as part of the settlement, revealed that the City rarely complied with this settlement provision. From July 8, 2001, through May 2002, the City's survey only demonstrated compliance in 11 percent of cases.

In May 2003, NYLAG requested that the Court order the City to take steps to remedy past violations and to ensure that the City desists from further violations. Yesterday's court order resolves this request. NYLAG will provide free legal assistance to those whose benefits were inappropriately denied and discontinued to ensure that these New Yorkers receive the benefits to which they are legally entitled.

NISSAN MOTOR: To Launch Recall of 2.55M Cars Over Engine Defect---------------------------------------------------------------Nissan Motor Co. announced that it will recall 2.55 million cars worldwide due to an engine defect, Reuters reports. The recall will cost the Japanese automaker an estimated 15 to 16 billion yen ($138-148 million), and will include 1.02 million cars, panning 25 models.

The defect was found in many popular cars manufactured between 1998 and May 2003, including the Sunny, March, Cube, Primera, Presage, X-Trail, Skyline and Fairlady Z, as well as two cars built for Subaru-maker Fuji Heavy Industries <7270.T> and Mazda Motor Corp <7261.T> on an original equipment manufacturer basis, Reuters states. The defect was found inside a sensor in the engine that could lead to a short-circuit, cutting the engine. There have been no reports of accidents caused by the problem.

The recall is the second largest ever conducted by an auto maker in Japan, a Transport Ministry official told Reuters. The biggest recall involved 1.05 million Nissan cars in May 1996. A Nissan spokeswoman told Reuters the cost of the recall had been factored into profit forecasts for the business year to next March. Some of the cost will be shared by parts makers, she said.

Shares of Nissan, owned 44.4 percent by France's Renault , fell on the recall news. The stock closed down 0.73 percent to 1,221 yen after touching a high of 1,273 yen.

SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT: SEC Launches Administrative Proceedings--------------------------------------------------------------The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted administrative proceedings against Paul A. Barrios III and Dennis P. O'Connell, Jr. based on the entry of a final judgment of permanent injunction against them. The Division of Enforcement alleges that from 2000 to August 2002, the respondents, through Shoreline Development Company (Shoreline), raised at least $3.8 million from more than 120 investors nationwide selling fractional undivided interests in oil and gas rights.

The complaint alleges that Shoreline's principals made material misrepresentations about the performance of Shoreline's wells, a purported business relationship with El Paso Field Services, and their use of investor funds. Shoreline purchased the fractional undivided interests in oil and gas rights in its own name and then resold the interests to public without disclosing to the investors that it was selling its own securities and marking them up in price from 50% to 66%.

This mark up was not disclosed to investors. Shoreline's offering materials stated in the "use of proceeds" section that either "all" of the investor funds will be used for well drilling and completion costs, including production equipment and expenses, or that the purchase price of the securities includes the costs of drilling and completing the well, production equipment, and management fees. Roughly 65% of the amount raised from investors was paid to Shoreline's well operators for the purchase of investors' fractional interests in the wells and for drilling and completion costs. About 35% of investor funds was misused by Shoreline's principals for their personal use.

A hearing will be held before an Administrative Law Judge to determine whether the Division's allegations are true, to provide respondents an opportunity to dispute the allegations, and to determine what sanctions, if any, are appropriate and in the public interest. The Commission directed that an administrative law judge issue an initial decision in this matter within 210 days from the date of service of the Order Instituting Proceedings.

On October 8, 2002, in an action brought by the Commission, the US District Court for the Central District of California entered a final judgment of permanent injunction enjoining Mr. Barrios and Mr. O'Connell from violating the securities registration provisions of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and from committing violations of the broker-dealer registration provisions of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act.

TEXAS: Members of Education Board Sued Over Rejection of Book-------------------------------------------------------------Some current and former members of the Texas Board of Education faces a class action filed by a textbook author and two Dallas high school students, over its rejection of an environmental science textbook in 2001, the Associated Press reports. The suit also names as defendants:

(1) board Chairwoman Geraldine Miller,

(2) Don McLeroy,

(3) Cynthia Thornton and

(4) former member Grace Shore

The suit was filed on behalf of 17-year-old Julia McLouth and 18-year-old Lillian Pollak, both seniors at the Talented and Gifted Magnet High School in Dallas. The suit alleges the officials violated the First Amendment in its decision to reject the book written by Daniel Chiras, a professor of environmental science at several colleges and universities in Colorado. The book is entitled "Environmental Science: Creating a Sustainable Future." The suit asserts that the board members didn't agree with the author's viewpoints and wanted to suppress them. Mr. Chiras told AP his book contained no errors and followed curriculum.

At least one board member dismissed the lawsuit as "frivolous" and "stupid," telling AP the book was rejected because it contained factual errors. Board member David Bradley told AP the case has nothing to do with free speech. He said the board rejected the textbook because it is filled with errors.

UNCLE CHARLIE'S: Recalls Muffin Mix Due To Undeclared Sulfites--------------------------------------------------------------Uncle Charlie's Products, Inc., of 189 East Avenue, Akron, NY 14001 is recalling Apricot Muffin Mix because it may contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The Apricot Muffin Mix being recalled are those packages that DO NOT contain the phrase "Apricots, (Sulphured)" in the ingredient statement section of the back label. The recalled product was shipped throughout the United States prior to October 14, 2003.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Apricot Muffin Mix in packages which did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased Apricot Muffin Mix should return it to the place of purchase. For more details contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-666-2899.

New Securities Fraud Cases

ALKERMES INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court---------------------------------------------------------------Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Alkermes, Inc. (NASDAQ:ALKS) common stock during the period between April 22, 1999 and July 1, 2002.

The complaint charges Alkermes and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Alkermes is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of controlled-release drug delivery technologies and their application to existing or new drug therapies.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants artificially inflated the price of Alkermes shares by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements about the Company's New Drug Application (NDA) for Risperdal Consta.

The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants during the Class Period but were concealed from the investing public, were as follows:

(1) In an attempt to decrease development expenses and speed the product to market, defendants concealed the deficient nature of the manufacturing process for Medisorb polylactide-glycolide polymer used to manufacture Risperdal Consta, resulting in quality management issues and delays in the development program;

(2) In order to conceal lot-to-lot variations resulting from the manufacturing process for Medisorb polymer, defendants minimized process development and validation requirements, including the establishment of specifications and analytical tests necessary to control those variations;

(3) Significant quality issues for the manufacture of Risperdal Consta existed at the Wilmington, Ohio facility, impacting the ability of the Company to meet clinical development timelines for Risperdal Consta;

(4) In order to avoid disclosure of the serious deficiencies of the Medisorb manufacturing process, particularly the lot-to-lot variation in molecular weight for Medisorb polymer, and in order to find a way to fix the desired molecular weight of the Risperdal Consta finished drug product, defendants patented a method to degrade the finished product to the desired molecular weight;

(5) Defendants' revenue projections for Risperdal Consta were grossly inflated based on defendants' concealment of the fact that Risperdal's adverse effects and safety or tolerability issues worsen when Risperdal is formulated using Medisorb technology and used as intended;

(6) Defendants concealed that due to the combined effect of the financial agreements reached with its joint venture partner, Janssen, Risperdal Consta would not be profitable unless it achieved the high end of sales projections, an unlikely outcome because of the worsening of Risperdal's adverse effects and safety or tolerability issues when the drug is formulated using Medisorb technology and used as intended;

(7) The serious safety concerns for Risperdal "oral" and Risperdal Consta "depot" products, such as cerebrovascular effects in elderly patients, extrapyramidal symptoms, QT interval prolongation and diabetes, which were detected in clinical trials that went unreported to worldwide regulatory authorities for long periods, in some cases for studies completed well before the beginning of the Class Period, were negatively impacting the regulatory review process;

(8) For one or more reasons related to the known but unmet manufacturing, safety or efficacy requirements for the drug, the NDA for Risperdal Consta would not be approved on July 1, 2002;

(9) The failure to disclose the defective nature of the Risperdal Consta chemical and manufacturing controls, clinical program, safety and other issues preventing the Company from realizing product approval would prevent investors from learning the extent of the misrepresentations made to them during the Class Period.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Alkermes stock traded at inflated prices during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $70.06 on February 16, 2000, whereby the Company sold $200 million worth of its own securities. On July 1, 2002, defendants announced the receipt of a non-approvable letter for Risperdal Consta.

As a result of this announcement, Alkermes' stock price dropped precipitously over the next two days to a low of $4.04, or a loss of 93% from its Class Period high of $98 per share, on total volume of 29 million shares.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900 by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY----------------------------------------------------------------Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Nations Funds family of funds owned and operated by Bank of America Corporation (NYSE: BAC), and its subsidiaries and affiliates, between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below, are as follows:

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, against defendants Bank of America Corporation, Banc of America Capital Management, LLC., Bank of America Advisors, LLC, Nations Funds Inc., Robert H. Gordon, Theodore H. Sihpol III., Charles D. Bryceland, Edward J. Stern, Canary Capital Partners, LLC, Canary Investment Management, LLC, Canary Capital Partners, Ltd, each of the Funds, and John Does 1-100.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds, like Canary, to engage in "late trading" and "timing" of the Funds' securities.

Late trades are trades received after 4:00 p.m. EST that are filled based on that day's net asset value, as opposed to being filled based on the next day's net asset value, which is the proper procedure under SEC regulations. Late trading allows favored investors to make use of market-moving information that only becomes available after 4 P.M and has been compared to betting on a horse race that already has been run.

Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit and which ordinary investors are told that the funds police. Late trading and timing injure ordinary mutual fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in these practices -- and are acknowledged as improper practices by the Funds.

In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other favored investors, Bank of America and its subsidiaries allowed and facilitated Canary's timing and late trading activities, to the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for Canary's improper profits. These practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that the Funds actively police against timing and represented that post-4 P.M. EST trades will be priced based on the next day's net asset value and that premature redemptions will be assessed a charge.

BANK ONE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY---------------------------------------------------------------Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the One Group family of funds owned and operated by Bank One Corporation (NYSE: ONE), and its subsidiaries and affiliates, between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below, are as follows:

(1) One Group Balanced (Sym: OGASX, OAMAX, OAMBX, OGAFX)

(2) One Group Diversified Equity (Sym: PAVGX, OVBGX, ODECX, OGVFX)

(3) One Group Diversified International (Sym: PGIEX, ONIBX, OGDCX, WOIEX)

The action, numbered 03 CV 6915, is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendants Bank One Corp.; Banc One Investment Advisers; One Group (R) Mutual Funds; Canary Capital Partners, LLC; Canary Investment Management, LLC; Canary Capital Partners, Ltd; each of the Funds; and John Does 1-100.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds, like Canary, to engage in "late trading" and "timing" of the Funds' securities. Late trades are trades received after 4:00 p.m. EST that are filled based on that day's net asset value, as opposed to being filled based on the next day's net asset value, which is the proper procedure under SEC regulations.

Late trading allows favored investors to make use of market-moving information that only becomes available after 4:00 p.m. and has been compared to betting on a horse race that already has been run. Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit and which ordinary investors are told that the funds police. Late trading and timing injure ordinary mutual fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in these practices -- and are acknowledged as improper practices by the Funds. In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other favored investors, Bank One Corporation and its subsidiaries allowed and facilitated Canary's timing and late trading activities, to the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for Canary's improper profits.

These practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that the Funds actively police against timing and represented that post-4:00 p.m. EST trades will be priced based on the next day's net asset value and that premature redemptions will be assessed a charge.

BANK ONE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. OH---------------------------------------------------------------Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of shares of the One Group International Equity Index Fund (NASDAQ: OEIAX, OGEBX, OIICX, OIEAX), One Group Diversified International Fund (NASDAQ: PGIEX, ONIBX, OGDCX, WOIEX), One Group Small Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PGSGX, OGFBX, OSGCX, OGGFX), One Group Mid Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: OSGIX, OGOBX, OMGCX, HLGEX), One Group Mid Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: OGDIX, OGDBX, OMVCX, HLDEX), One Group Diversified Mid Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PECAX, ODMBX, ODMCX, WOOPX) and other funds managed by wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bank One Corporation between March 21, 2002 and April 30, 2003.

The following funds may be subject to this lawsuit:

(1) One Group Balanced (Sym: OGASX, OAMAX, OAMBX, OGAFX)

(2) One Group Diversified Equity (Sym: PAVGX, OVBGX, ODECX, OGVFX)

(3) One Group Diversified International (Sym: PGIEX, ONIBX, OGDCX, WOIEX)

The complaint charges the One Group Funds, Bank One Corporation, and certain of its wholly-owned subsidiaries with violations of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and common law breach of fiduciary duties in return for substantial fees and other income for themselves and their affiliates.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the One Group Funds and the other defendants engaged in illegal and improper trading practices, in concert with certain institutional traders, which caused financial injury to the shareholders of the One Group Funds.

According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously permitted certain favored investors, including Defendant Canary Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management, LLC (collectively, ``Canary'') to illegally receive the prior day's price for orders placed after 4 p.m. This allowed Canary and other mutual fund investors who engaged in the same wrongful course of conduct to capitalize on post 4:00 p.m. information, while those who bought their mutual fund shares lawfully could not.

The complaint further alleges that defendants permitted Canary and other favored investors to engage in ``timing'' of the One Group Funds whereby these favored investors were permitted to conduct short-term, ``in and out'' trading of mutual fund shares, despite explicit restrictions on such activity in the One Group Funds' prospectuses.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, or Stuart L. Berman by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

CATALINA MARKETING: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit------------------------------------------------------------Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Catalina Marketing Corporation (NYSE:POS) securities between April 18, 2002 and October 1, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing numerous positive statements concerning the Company's ability to grow its revenues and earnings at a rapid pace and the strong demand that existed for the Company's products, especially at its Health Resource division.

In truth and in fact, however, the Company was experiencing a slowdown in its revenue growth because its pharmaceutical clients had curtailed their spending on promotional items, such as the Company's newsletters, and retail pharmacies had become more cautious about participating in the Company's advertising programs and had reduced their distribution of the Company's health newsletters.

When these facts were belatedly disclosed by the Company on October 1, 2002, the price of Catalina common stock fell from $27.97 per share to close at $17.90 per share -- a drop of 36% -- on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations, by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: POS@bernlieb.com.

CHECK POINT: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY----------------------------------------------------------------Chitwood & Harley filed a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd., between July 10, 2001 and April 4, 2002, inclusive. The suit is brought against the Company and:

(1) Gil Shwed,

(2) Jerry Ungerman,

(3) Eyal Desheh,

(4) Irwin Federman, and

(5) Alex Vieux

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, the complaint alleges, defendants issued numerous statements concerning Check Point's revenue growth, product and marketing initiatives, and increasing revenues and profits while failing to disclose that demand for the Company's products was materially declining.

When this information was belatedly disclosed to the market on April 4, 2002, shares of Check Point fell as low as $20.09, to close at $22.07, on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Lauren Antonino or Jennifer Morris by Phone: 1-888-873-3999 (toll-free) by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.classlaw.com

DVI INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA---------------------------------------------------------------Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of DVI, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: DVIXQ.PK) between November 7, 2001 and August 13, 2003, inclusive, against Michael A. O'Hanlon, Chief Executive Officer and President and Steven R. Garfinkel, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued statements, press releases, and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC describing DVI's business operations and financial condition. The complaint alleges that the Company's statements during the class period regarding its financial condition and performance were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented that:

(1) DVI had violated GAAP by failing to write down in a timely fashion the value of certain non-performing or impaired assets;

(2) the Company's growth was, in material part, the result of improper accounting;

(4) the collateral pledged to the Company's lenders to secure its credit facilities was materially different than what DVI represented;

(5) the values of the Company's assets, net income and earnings were materially artificially inflated;

(6) DVI lacked adequate internal accounting controls and personnel expertise and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company;

(7) DVI's reported results were not presented in accordance with GAAP and did not fairly and accurately present the results of the Company's operations or financial condition.

On June 27, 2003, DVI stunned the market when it issued a press release announcing that its March 30, 2003, quarterly report had been rejected by the SEC because it had not been reviewed by an independent auditor. In addition, the Company disclosed that if it followed an accounting change recommended by its auditor Deloitte & Touche LLP, the Company would have to restate its net income for the first nine months of fiscal 2003 and its net income for its fiscal year 2002. The restatement would result in a dramatic reduction in the Company's net income.

For the first nine months of its fiscal year 2003, earnings would be reduced by $0.10 per share, or 44.45%, and its net income for fiscal year 2002 would be reduced by $1.395 million, or 34.12%. Moreover, later disclosures would reveal that the Company had misled investors as to the nature and amount of the assets used as collateral to secure its credit facilities. The combined improprieties resulted in the Company filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole, Christopher S. Hinton, George Peters, or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference to DVI.

GOODYEAR TIRE: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. OH----------------------------------------------------------------Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (NYSE:GT), between October 22, 1998 and October 22, 2003 inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

On October 22, 2003, Goodyear announced that its 1998-2002 results had to be restated to eliminate over $100 million in revenue that had been improperly recorded. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Goodyear securities.

HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files GA Stock Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action inthe United States District Court for the Northern District ofGeorgia on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock ofHealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: HTRN) fromJanuary 4, 2000 through July 25, 2003, inclusive againstHealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc. Also named as defendantsin the suit are:

(1) Argil J. Wheelock, M.D.,

(2) Russell Maddox,

(3) Martin McGahan, and

(4) Victoria W. Beck.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materialmisrepresentations to the market between January 4, 2000 andJuly 25, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price ofHealthTronics' common stock.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failedto disclose and misrepresented the following material adversefacts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregardedby them:

(i) that the clinical results of the Company's OssaTron(R) device resulted in only a marginal difference in patients' own assessment of heel pain following treatment, and no statistical difference in their assessment of activity or use of pain medication following OssaTron(R) treatment as compared to the placebo treatment;

(ii) that the Company knew or was severely reckless in not knowing that insurance companies would be, and/or had been reluctant to provide coverage for a product whose effectiveness was in question; and

(iii) that the Company was aware of the said problems afflicting its OssaTron(R) device and their effects on the demand for such device, and therefore lacked any reasonable basis for providing certain earnings guidances.

On July 28, 2003, the Company issued a press release announcingthat it was downgrading its previously announced earningsguidance, stating that it expected earnings to be in the rangeof $0.45 to $0.55 per share for fiscal year 2003, as opposed toits earlier guidance of $0.69 to $0.74 per share.

The downgraded guidance was attributed to declining growth indemand for the Company's OssaTron (R) procedures and thecontinued reluctance of many third party payors to reimburse forthe patients for the procedure. The Company's announcementshocked the market, and the Company's shares plunged 26.8percent, or $2.92 per share, to close at $7.95 per share on July28, 2003.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman byPhone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or by E-mail:info@sbclasslaw.com.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially falseand misleading statements to the market, and by failing todisclose material information that plaintiffs contend defendantshad a duty to disclose, between January 4, 2000 and July 25,2003.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants madematerial misrepresentations and/or omitted to make materialdisclosures during the Class Period concerning the efficacy,testing and market acceptance of OssaTronr, its leading productfor the treatment of heel pain. Among other things, thecomplaint charges, defendants failed to disclose that some ofthe Company's own tests failed to support defendants' statementsthat OssaTronr was more effective, safer and less costly thanalternative, non-surgical treatments for heel pain.

In addition, the complaint alleges that defendantsmisrepresented the market acceptance of OssaTronr becauseDefendants knew, or were severely reckless in disregarding atthe time these statements were made, that serious questionsexisted among the medical community concerning the effectivenessof extracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESWT) for heel pain,which in turn raised serious issues as to whether insurancecarriers and other third party payors would cover OssaTronrprocedures.

As a result, and because the Company was experiencing difficultyin its billing and collection department, which further madeinsurance reimbursement difficult to obtain, the complaintclaims, the company's January 28, 2003 earnings projectionslacked any reasonable basis in fact when made.

When defendants finally acknowledged that the OssaTronr productwas not being absorbed by the market as they had previouslyclaimed, the market's reaction to the disclosures was swift andsevere. On July 28, 2003, the market price of HealthTronicscommon stock tumbled over 26% in unusually heavy trading.Indeed, the price of HealthTronics common stock dropped from ahigh of $17.60 per share during the Class Period to as low as$7.76 per share on July 28, 2003.

NET PERCEPTIONS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Suit in MN Court------------------------------------------------------Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a class action has been commenced in the Fourth Judicial District Court of the Minnesota State Court on behalf of holders of Net Perceptions (NASDAQ:NETP) common stock.

The complaint charges Net Perceptions and certain of its directors with violations of applicable law. Specifically that complaint alleges that the Individual Defendants have violated their fiduciary duties by rejecting offers seeking to acquire the Company, without regard to the fairness of the transaction to Net Perceptions' shareholders and instead are attempting to liquidate the Company to the detriment of the shareholders and without regard to non-cash assets like the Company's net operating loss (NOL) carry forward.

Defendant Net Perceptions, it is alleged, directly breached and/or aided and abetted the other defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff and the other holders of Net Perceptions stock.

Plaintiff Don Blakstad seeks to enjoin defendants actions. Mr. Blakstad is a major investor in Twin Cities Companies and around the world. Mr. Blakstad is represented by Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, who has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving corporate misconduct.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900 by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com

STRONG FINANCIAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY---------------------------------------------------------------Wolf Popper LLP filed a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, charging improper trading practices at mutual fund companies including Strong Financial Corporation. The Complaint is brought on behalf of persons who acquired, redeemed or owned mutual fund shares of Strong Financial Corporation's Strong Growth Funds, Strong Value Funds, Strong Advisor Mid Cap Growth Fund, and Strong Income Funds, from September 9, 2000 through September 2, 2003 against Strong, and its subsidiary, Strong Capital Management, Inc. pursuant to the prospectus therefor.

The Complaint charges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for false and misleading statements and omissions in the prospectuses, and common law breach of fiduciary duty. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the above-named mutual fund companies engaged in illegal and/or improper trading practices, in concert with certain institutional traders, which caused financial injury to the shareholders of the subject mutual funds, in return for substantial fees and other income for themselves and their affiliates.

The complaint alleges that the schemes at Strong, Janus, Bank of America, and Bank One took two primary forms. First is the ``late trading'' of mutual fund shares by select customers of the fund (including hedge funds). Specifically, the complaint alleges that certain mutual fund investors of the above-named fund companies, including Canary Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management, LLC (collectively, ``Canary''), improperly arranged with defendants that orders placed after 4 p.m. on a given day would illegally receive that day's price (as opposed to the next day's price, which the order would have received had it been processed lawfully).

This allowed Canary and other mutual fund investors who engaged in the same wrongful course of conduct to capitalize on post 4:00 p.m. information, while those who bought their mutual fund shares lawfully could not.

The complaint further alleges that defendants engaged in wrongful conduct known as ``timing.'' Timing is an investment technique involving short-term, ``in and out'' trading of mutual fund shares, designed to exploit inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies price their shares. It is widely acknowledged that ``timing'' inures to the detriment of long-term shareholders. Nonetheless, in return for investments from certain hedge funds and other traders that would increase fund managers' fees, fund managers entered into undisclosed agreements to allow them to ``time'' their funds.

For more details, contact Michael A. Schwartz, Andrew E. Lencyk or Mark Marino by Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: 212-759-4600 or 877-370-7703 (toll free) by Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 (toll free) by E-mail: mschwartz@wolfpopper.com or alencyk@wolfpopper.com or mmarino@wolfpopper.com or irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com

STRONG FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY---------------------------------------------------------------Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Strong Funds family of funds owned and operated by Strong Financial Corporation, and its subsidiaries and affiliates, between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below, are as follows:

The action, is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendants Strong Financial Corporation, Strong Capital Management, Inc., and each of the Funds' registrants and issuers, Edward J. Stern, Canary Capital Partners, LLC, Canary Investment Management, LLC, Canary Capital Partners, Ltd, each of the Funds, and John Does 1-100.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds, such as Canary, to engage in the "timing" of their transactions in the Funds' securities.

Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit. Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in such practices -- and is acknowledged as an improper practice by the Funds. In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other favored investors, Strong Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries allowed and facilitated Canary's timing activities, to the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for Canary's improper profits. These practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that the Funds actively police against timing.

SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in CA----------------------------------------------------------------Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of SureBeam Corporation (formerly NASDAQ: SURE; currently: SUREE) from March 16, 2001 through August 20, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that SureBeam, a company which provides electronic irradiation systems and services for the food industry, and certain of its officers and directors issued materially false and misleading statements in order to inflate the price of SureBeam's stock and make its $60 million IPO successful. Specifically, defendants improperly recorded transactions included in SureBeam's 2000-2001 financial results by recognizing revenue from a non-affiliated party when it knew that the customer did not have the ability to pay.

On July 30, 2003, SureBeam announced that it was going to delay the release of its second quarter earnings from the planned date of July 31, 2003 until August 12, 2003. On August 12, 2003, SureBeam announced that it was going to further delay the release of its second quarter earnings until after the Company's Form 10-Q for the second quarter had been filed. On August 21, 2003, SureBeam announced that it was dismissing its independent auditor Deloitte & Touche LLP ("Deloitte") due to issues that Deloitte had with the Company's revenue recognition policy.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel by Phone: (800) 797-5499, or by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com.

*********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. The Asbestos Defendant Profiles is backed by an online database created to respond to custom searches. Go to http://litigationdatasource.com/asbestos_defendant_profiles.html

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.